interpretation; and, at others, Hebrew words are inserted without any explanation whatever. In many respects it corresponds with the paraphrase of the Pseudo-Jonathan, whose legendary tales are here frequently repeated, abridged, or expanded. From the impurity of its style and the number of Greek, Latin, and Persian words which it contains, Bishop Walton, Carpzov, Wolff, and many other eminent philologers, are of opinion that it is a compilation by several authors, and consists of extracts and collections. From these internal evidences, the commencement of the seventh century has been assigned as its probable date; but it is more likely not to have been written before the eighth or perhaps the ninth century. This Targum was also translated into Latin by Chevalier and by Francis Taylor.

IV. The TARGUM OF JONATHAN BEN UZZIEL.-According to the talmudical traditions, the author of this paraphrase was chief of the eighty distinguished scholars of Rabbi Hillel the elder, and a fellow-disciple of Simeon the Just, who bore the infant Messiah in his arms: consequently he would be nearly contemporary with Onkelos. Wolff', however, adopts the opinion of Dr. Prideaux, that he flourished a short time before the birth of Christ, and compiled the work which bears his name, from more ancient Targums, that had been preserved to his time by oral tradition. From the silence of Origen and Jerome concerning this Targum, of which they could not but have availed themselves if it had really existed in their time, and also from its being cited only in the Babylonian Talmud, both Bauer and Jahn date it much later than is generally admitted: the former, indeed, is of opinion, that its true date cannot be ascertained and the latter, from the inequalities of style and method observable in it, considers it as a compilation from the interpretations of several learned men, made about the close of the third or fourth century. [These reasons, however, are not sufficient. Perhaps there have been later interpolations.2] This paraphrase treats on the Prophets, that is (according to the Jewish classification of the sacred writings), on the books of Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Sam. 1, & 2 Kings, who are termed the former prophets; and on Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets, who are designated as the latter prophets. Though the style of this Targum is not so pure and elegant as that of Onkelos, yet it is not disfigured by those legendary tales and numerous foreign and barbarous words which abound in the later Targums. Both the language and method of interpretation, however, are irregular: in the exposition of the former prophets, the text is more closely rendered than in that of the latter, which is less accurate, as well as more paraphrastical, and interspersed with some traditions and fabulous legends. In order to attach the greater authority to the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, the Jews, not satisfied with making him contemporary with the prophets Malachi, Zachariah, and Haggai, and asserting that he received it from their lips, have related that, while Jonathan was composing his paraphrase, there was an earthquake for forty leagues around him; and that, if any bird happened

Bibliotheca Hebraica, tom. ii. p. 1160.
Keil, Einleitung, § 191. p. 630.

to pass over him, or a fly alighted on his paper while writing, they were immediately consumed by fire from heaven, without any injury being sustained either by his person or his paper!! The whole of this Targum was translated into Latin by Alfonso de Zamora, Andrea de Leon, and Conrad Pellican: and the paraphrase on the twelve minor prophets, by Immanuel Tremellius.

V. The TARGUM ON THE PSALMS, JOB, AND PROVERBS, is ascribed by some Jewish writers to Raf Jose, or Rabbi Joseph, surnamed the one-eyed or blind, who is said to have been at the head of the academy at Sora, in the third century; but the real author is unknown. The style is barbarous, impure, and very unequal, interspersed with numerous digressions and legendary narratives: on which account the younger Buxtorf, and after him Bauer and Jahn, are of opinion that the whole is a compilation of later times; and this sentiment appears to be the most correct. Dr. Prideaux characterizes its language as the most corrupt Chaldee of the Jerusalem dialect. The translators of the preceding Targum, together with Arias Montanus, have given a Latin version of this Targum.

VI. The TARGUM ON THE MEGILLOTH, or five books of Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations of Jeremiah, Ruth, and Esther, is evidently a compilation by several persons: the barbarism of its style, numerous digressions, and idle legends which are inserted, all concur to prove it to be of late date, and certainly not earlier than the sixth century. The paraphrase on the book of Ruth and the Lamentations of Jeremiah is the best executed portion: Ecclesiastes is more freely paraphrased; but the text of the Song of Solomon is absolutely lost amidst the diffuse circumscription of its author, and his dull glosses and fabulous additions.

VII. VIII. IX. The THREE TARGUMS ON THE BOOK OF ESTHER. -This book has always been held in the highest estimation by the Jews; which circumstance induced them to translate it repeatedly into the Chaldee dialect. Three paraphrases on it have been printed: one in the Antwerp Polyglott, which is much shorter and contains fewer digressions than the others; another in Bishop Walton's Polyglott, which is more diffuse, and comprises more numerous Jewish fables and traditions; and a third, of which a Latin version was published by Francis Taylor; and which, according to Carpzov, is more stupid and diffuse than either of the preceding. They are all three of very late date.

X. A TARGUM ON THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES, which for a long time was unknown both to Jews and Christians, was discovered in the library at Erfurt, belonging to the ministers of the Augsburg confession, by Matthias Frederick Beck; who published it in 1680, 3, 4, in two quarto volumes. Another edition was published at Amsterdam by the learned David Wilkins (1715, 4to.), from a manuscript in the university library at Cambridge. It is more complete than Beck's edition, and supplies many of its deficiencies. This Targum, however, is of very little value: like the other Chaldee paraphrases, it blends legendary tales with the narrative, and introduces numerous Greek words, such as ὄχλος, σοφιςαὶ, &c.

XI. Of all the Chaldee paraphrases above noticed, the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel are most highly valued by the Jews, who implicitly receive their expositions of doubtful passages. Schickhard, Mayer, Helvicus, Leusden, Hottinger, and Dr. Prideaux, have conjectured that some Chaldee Targum was in use in the synagogue where our Lord read Isai. Ixi. 1, 2. (Luke iv. 17-19.); and that he quoted Psal. xxii. 1. when on the cross (Matt. xxvii. 46.) not out of the Hebrew text, but out of a Chaldee paraphrase. But there does not appear to be sufficient ground for this hypothesis. The Targum on the Psalms, in which the words cited by our Lord are to be found, is so long posterior to the time of his crucifixion, that it cannot be received as evidence. Dr. Kennicott supposes the Chaldee paraphrases to have been designedly altered in compliment to the previously-corrupted copies of the Hebrew text; or, in other words, that "alterations have been made wilfully in the Chaldee paraphrase to render that paraphrase, in some places, more conformable to the words of the Hebrew text, where those Hebrew words are supposed to be right, but had themselves been corrupted." But, notwithstanding all their deficiencies and interpolations, the Targums, especially those of Onkelos and Jonathan, are of considerable importance in the interpretation of the Scriptures, not only as they supply the meanings of words or phrases occurring but once in the Old Testament, but also because they reflect considerable light on the Jewish rites, ceremonies, laws, customs, usages, &c. mentioned or alluded to in both Testaments. But it is in establishing the genuine meaning of particular prophecies relative to the Messiah, in opposition to the false explications of the Jews and Anti-trinitarians, that these Targums are pre-eminently useful. Bishop Walton, Dr. Prideaux, Pfeiffer, Carpzov, and Rambach, have illustrated this remark by numerous examples. Bishop Patrick, and Drs. Gill and Clarke, in their respective Commentaries on the Bible, have inserted many valuable elucidations from the Chaldee paraphrasts. Leusden recommends that no one should attempt to read their writings, or indeed to learn the Chaldee dialect, who is not previously well-grounded in Hebrew: he advises the Chaldee text of Daniel and Ezra to be first read either with his own Chaldee Manual, or with Buxtorf's Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon; after which the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan may be perused, with the help of Buxtorf's Chaldee and Talmudic Lexicon, and of De Lara's work, De Convenientia Vocabulorum Rabbinicorum cum Græcis et quibusdam aliis linguis Europæis. Amstelodami, 1648, 4to. Amstelodami, 1648, 4to. Those who may be able to procure it may more advantageously study Mr. Riggs' Manual of the Chaldee Language. Boston (Massachusetts), 1832. 8vo.

[It may be observed that the Jerusalem Targum is merely another recension of that of the Pseudo-Jonathan, as Zunz has proved; that there are several instances of close agreement of Onkelos with Jonathan (comp. Targ. Deut. xxii. 5., with Judg.v. 26.; Deut. xxiv. 16.with 2 Kings xiv. 6.; Numb. xxi. 28, 29., with Jer. xlviii. 45, 46.); so Dr. Kennicott, Second Dissertation, pp. 167-193. Die Gottesdienstl. Vörtrage der Juden, pp. 66-72.

that one must have followed the other though whether Onkelos was in the hands of Jonathan, as Zunz thinks', or whether Jonathan was used by Onkelos, as Hävernick maintains, on the ground that the tradition of the Talmud makes Jonathan the eldest, and that an interpretation of the prophets would be likely to precede the more delicate task of interpreting the law, is matter of doubt and that the Targum on Esther, printed in the Antwerp Polyglott, is another recension of that published by Bishop Walton. Traces, moreover, have been found of a Jerusalem Targum on the Prophets.2]

§ 2. On the Ancient Greek Versions of the Old Testament. I. The SEPTUAGINT;-1. History of it; -2 A critical account of its exe cution; -3. What manuscripts were used by its authors; -4. Account of the biblical labours of Origen; -5. Notice of the recensions or editions of Eusebius and Pamphilus, of Lucian, and of Hesychius ;-6. Peculiar importance of the Septuagint version in the criticism and interpretation of the New Testament.—II. Account of other Greek versions of the Old Testament ; —1. Version of AQUILA;-2. Of THEODOTION;-3. Of SYMMACHUS;—4, 5, 6. Anonymous versions.—III. 1. References in ancient manuscripts to other versions; -2. The Venetian Greek version.

I. AMONG the Greek versions of the Old Testament, the ALEXANDRIAN OF SEPTUAGINT, as it is generally termed, is the most ancient and valuable, and was held in so much esteem, both by the Jews and by the first Christians, as to be constantly read in the synagogues and churches. Hence it is uniformly cited by the early fathers, whether Greek or Latin, and from this version all the translations into other languages, which were anciently approved by the Christian church, were executed (with the exception of the PeshitoSyriac), as the Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Gothic, and Old Italic or Latin version in use before the time of Jerome; and to this day the Septuagint is exclusively read in the Greek and most other Oriental churches.3 This version has derived its name either from the Jewish account of seventy-two persons having been employed to make it, or from its having received the approbation of the Sanhedrim, or great council of the Jews, which consisted of seventy, or,

'Die Gottesdienstl. Vörtrage der Juden, p. 63.

* See Hävernick, Einleitung, 1. i. §§ 79-82.; Keil, Einleitung, §§ 189-193.; Davidson, Bibl. Crit. vol. i. chap. xiv.

'Walton, Proleg. ix. pp. 333-469.; from which, and from the following authorities, our account of the Septuagint is derived, viz. Bauer, Critica Sacra, Tract. 11. §§ 41-52., pp. 239-273., who has chiefly followed Hody's book, hereafter noticed, in the history of the Septuagint version; Dr. Prideaux, Connection, part ii. book i. sub anno 277. vol. ii. pp. 27-49.; Masch, Preface to part ii. vol. ii. of his edition of Le Long's Bibliotheca Sacra, in which the history of the Septuagint version is minutely examined; Morus, in Ernesti, vol. ii. pp. 50—81. 101–119.; Carpzov, Critica Sacra, pars ii. cap. ii. pp. 481–551.; Masch and Boerner's edition of Le Long's Bibliotheca Sacra, part ii. vol. ii. pp. 216–220. 256 304.; Thomas, Introductio in Hermeneuticam Sacr. utriusque Testamenti, pp. 228-253.; Harles, Brevior Notitia Litteraturæ Græcæ, pp. 638-643.; and Renouard, Annales de l'Imprimerie des Aldes, tom. i. p. 140. See also Origenis Hexapla, a Montfaucon, tom. i. Prælim. Diss. pp. 27-36. A full account of the manuscripts and editions of the Greek Scriptures is given in the preface to vol. i. of the edition of the Septuagint commenced by the late Rev. Dr. Holmes, for a notice of which see Bibl. List, vol. iv.

more correctly, of seventy-two persons. Much uncertainty, however, has prevailed concerning the real history of this ancient version; and, while some have strenuously advocated its miraculous and divine origin, other eminent philologists have laboured to prove that it must have been executed by several persons and at different times. 1. According to one account, Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, caused this translation to be made for the use of the library which he had founded at Alexandria, at the request and with the advice of the celebrated Demetrius Phalereus, his principal librarian. For this purpose it is reported that he sent Aristeas and Andreas, two distinguished officers of his court, to Jerusalem, on an embassy to Eleazar, then high priest of the Jews, to request of the latter a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures, and that there might also be sent to him seventy-two persons (six chosen out of each of the twelve tribes), who were well skilled equally in the Hebrew and Greek languages. These learned men were accordingly shut up in the island of Pharos; where, having agreed in the translation of each period after a mutual conference, Demetrius wrote down their version as they dictated it to him; and thus, in the space of seventy-two days, the whole was accomplished. This relation is derived from a letter ascribed to Aristeas himself, the authenticity of which has been greatly disputed. If, as there is every reason to believe is the case, this piece is a forgery, it was made at a very early period; for it was in existence in the time of Josephus, who has made use of it in his Jewish Antiquities. The veracity of Aristeas's narrative was not questioned until the seventeenth or eighteenth century; at which time, indeed, biblical criticism was, comparatively, in its infancy. Vives', Scaliger Van Dale3, Dr. Prideaux, and, above all, Dr. Hody, were the prin, cipal writers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries who attacked the genuineness of the pretended narrative of Aristeas; and, though it was ably vindicated by Bishop Walton, Isaac Vossius, Whiston 7, Brett, and other modern writers, the learned in our own time are fully agreed in considering it as fictitious.

Philo, the Jew, who also notices the Septuagint version, was ignorant of most of the circumstances narrated by Aristeas; but he relates others which appear not less extraordinary. According to him, Ptolemy Philadelphus sent to Palestine for some learned Jews, whose number he does not specify; and these, going over to the island of Pharos, there executed so many distinct versions, all of which so exactly and uniformly agreed in sense, phrases, and words, as proved them to have been not common interpreters, but

In a note on Augustine de Civitate Dei, lib. xviii. c. 42.

Amst. 1705. 4to.

2 In a note on Eusebius's Chronicle, no. MDCCXXXIV. Dissertatio super Aristea, de LXX. interpretibus, &c. De Bibliorum Textibus Originalibus, Versionibus Græcis, et Latinâ Vulgatâ, libri iv. quibus præmittitur Aristeæ Historia, folio, Oxon. 1705. Proleg. ix. §§ 3-10. pp. 338-359.

De LXX. Interpretibus, &c. Hag. Com. 1661, 4to.

In the Appendix to his work on The Literal Accomplishment of Scripture Prophe cics, London, 1724, 8vo.

8 Dissertation on the Septuagint, in Bishop Watson's Collection of Theological Tracts, vol. iii. p. 18. et seq.